X-Message-Number: 17446 Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 14:24:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Badger <> Subject: I and Me Hi all, I think my problem so far with the discussion on self-worth is that the term self has remained a little fuzzy. I ve lately been thinking of the self in a dualistic way. Let me explain. First, there is the self that knows . This is the self that is processing information across time. It is aware and reflective. It is characterized by three fundamental attributes; (1) a sense of continuity, (2) a sense of distinctiveness, and (3) a sense of volition. Then there is the self that is known . This self is comprised of those things that describe it. This is all the things that I own, my relationships, my thoughts and feelings, my memories . . . all the things that describe me that also have meaning and relevance to the "self that knows . So, in short, there is I the know-er and Me the known . Now it appears to be the nature of the know-er to assign valences (values) to all the known things. For instance, my car has more value to me than my lamp, my relationship with my friend has more value than my relationship with my pet, certain memories are more cherished than others, etc. Of course, these valuations can quickly change if the situation calls for it. Indeed, the knowing self that is flexible with it s system of valuations is likely more resilient over time. The self that is known, then, can be described as a complex organization of valuations. In other words, there is the self that values and the self that is valued . George S. & Mike P. have been debating the value of self worth. I agree there are pitfalls with this human habit. Trouble can begin when the self that knows goes beyond it s normal duties and attempts to assign a value to itself, instead of to the various aspects of the self that is known . Or when the self that knows makes the mistake of actually believing that it is the self that is known , when it's more likely the case that the things you own, your thoughts, feelings, etc. are, if anything, a relatively transient aspect of you. After all, possessions are lost, memories fade, and relationships end. And still there "you" are. Given enough time, almost everything about your "me that is known" would change. So the problem is that a global estimate of self-worth has little real meaning. We use social comparison to construct these estimates based on what's important to us at a particular point in time. For example, I suck at golf. Does my self-esteem suffer as a result? No, because I don t really care about golf right now. But I can imagine a situation might arise where I would care. Then my self-worth might take a dive. See what I mean? How meaningful can the notion of self-worth be when it is so dependent upon the vicissitudes of the human condition? Now which aspect of the self is most important? The know-er? Or the known? Clearly, the things that describe you change with time and the values you assign those things change with time as well. The know-er is obviously the more important part of the overall self-structure. Would you still want to be reanimated if there was a 50% memory loss upon awakening? I bet you would. How about if you had complete amnesia? Would you still want to be revived? Would it still be you? But now here I am assigning value to the self that knows when I just said it doesn t make sense to do that. OK, it s true, I greatly value I that knows but only because it s the foundation of my self-structure and must be retained for me to have a sense of continuity. I don t value it on the basis of social comparison. Actually, I suspect my I that knows is pretty much like everyone else s. I don t know if I ve been sufficiently clear here, but I wanted to present a different viewpoint. I think it behooves us to think carefully about the nature of self since it is, after all, what we re going to such great lengths to preserve. Best regards, Scott Badger Vita Perpetua __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17446